New Yorker Article About Tarbosaurus Smuggler Eric Prokopi

[THobern]

This is very similar to what I was thinking earlier today when reading this topic.

Not just what happens to biodiversity from climate shifts, but anything we have done "unnatural" to the planet. Lowering water quality, over fishing, destruction of environments, global warming, etc. The only way to fully understand what we've done (and hopefully reverse it) is to understand how the planet was before we started messing with it.

LINK

For which you need data points. If not, you're actually measuring your selection bias; it would be worrying if scientific predictions were skewed by which species were most desirable to collectors.

[mikeymig]

My two cents,

We can talk for days, hour after hour on how important or unimportant fossils are and we won't change a thing in the grand scheme. I would like to pose what I think is a very important question. Why the bias when it comes to selling, trading, and collecting of fossils? I personally know Eric and know that he's not a master criminal intent on raping the earth of her treasures for fame and fortune. I bought many fossils from him over the years so that we can share them with the masses because I believe that every home should have their own personal museum. Most people can't appreciate the world we live in unless they can hold a piece of it in their hands. Who cares if it ends up on a "mantle" for awhile we are all just part time curators of the fossils we find and own anyway. I also personally know people who collect minerals and have made millions of dollars buying and selling their specimens. These same people have the only one of this in the world and the best of that in the world but no one is dragging them to court. They didn't find these in their backyard and I'm sure it said "rocks" on the custom forms when they were leaving the country they were found in. In fact, I can fit three specimens from a top mineral collector in my pants pocket that would exceed a million dollars in today's market. I think it's funny how we can sit here and judge Eric but I'm sure we would feel different if the govt. was knocking on our door to take something from us that we paid for. I guess what it all boils down to me is "finders keepers, losers weepers".

Edited January 23, 2013 by mikeymig

[32fordboy]

Hi Nick: I mean no disrespect here, but putting people on the moon, exploring other planets, etc does nothing to feed the starving and disenfranchised masses. Because we here on the forum love paleontology we are narrow minded in our view. Do you think the diggers in Mongolia, who probably fed their families for years from Eric's tarbosaurus, gave a hoot about paleontology? And, please, again no disrespect intended as I, like you, are all for the digging and sale of fossils, but did I not see a chilotherium for sale on your website?

No offense taken, at all. I understand your point about not feeding the starving, etc, but these types of sciences have answered questions we've pondered for thousands of years. That is why it's important. And I understand your point about people being fed on their labor removing the animal. At the same time, when somebody gets involved, knowing they're walking the line...

And yes, you did see a Chilotherium on my website. It is not important to science in any way and was exported pre-ban. Again, it's all about responsibility. I've broken no laws, nor do I intend to.

Nick

Edited January 23, 2013 by 32fordboy

[steelhead9]

No disrespect taken, at all. I understand your point about not feeding the starving, etc, but these types of sciences have answered questions we've pondered for thousands of years. That is why it's important.

And yes, you did see a Chilotherium on my website. It is not important to science in any way and was exported pre-ban. Again, it's all about responsibility. I've broken no laws, nor do I intend to.

Nick

Hey Nick: It's a fine line all around and I respect what you do and I like your website. I am a prepper and have sold many fossils myself. It makes me sick to even point out something like your chilotherium, but I feel Eric is being vilified unjustly. Of course you have broken no laws, but the export of fossils from China has been illegal under Chinese law (not US law) far before your chilotherium was exported. This violates no US laws, nor should it, given the rampant disregard on the part of the Chinese concerning our copyright laws. When a statement is made that someone like Eric has disrespected the paleontologists that have come before, I have to take exception. I doubt Eric thought selling a tarbosaurus in the US was any more wrong than you selling a chilotherium (and, I believe, legally it wasn't). Of course, he was totally wrong in falsifying customs documents and that was his downfall, for which he will pay the price.

[32fordboy]

Of course, he was totally wrong in falsifying customs documents and that was his downfall, for which he will pay the price.

And that's the purpose of this thread...the falsifying of documents. For the record, I do not know Eric personally. Everyone I've talked to who knows him says he's a great guy. It is harsh for us to judge when he's not here to defend himself, no doubt about it.

Maybe I should have worded the last part of my opinion a bit differently so as not to sound too harsh. I just feel that when you push the envelope, things happen.

Nick

[AgrilusHunter]

Unhappily, as predicted by 'FossilDAWG,' some subscribers here have gotten squirmy and defensive, taking churlish potshots at me and at (here defenseless) Eric Prokopi. Oh, well! Some chaff with the wheat is inevitable, I suppose.

Hi Harry,

I have not attacked you in any way, I've not been disrespectful towards you, nor have I been 'squirmy' or 'defensive.' On the contrary I've tried my best to respond directly to points that you have made, as well as craft my responses to still address the question you initially started this debate with. I've given you clear concise responses to all of your points. Can you say the same?

I'm interested in continuing a debate to discuss the importance of paleontology. Additionally, I see great value in your initial statement of getting people to open their minds and see things differently, or at least from another perspective. However, I'm not interested in tap dancing around the issue. I've responded to your claim that all of my support for paleontology was idiosyncratic by presenting unbiased data to support my belief. I'm honestly interested to know what you think of those data. If we are finished here that is fine too, I'll go back to splitting more nodules.

Edited January 24, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[FossilDAWG]

My two cents,

We can talk for days, hour after hour on how important or unimportant fossils are and we won't change a thing in the grand scheme. I would like to pose what I think is a very important question. Why the bias when it comes to selling, trading, and collecting of fossils?... I guess what it all boils down to me is "finders keepers, losers weepers".

I hope I have not done violence to your post by cutting it down, just trying to distill the central message so I can respond.

While I agree that blanket bans on collecting/selling/trading are excessive, I also think that "finders keepers, losers weepers" goes too far in the other direction, especially if you consider what is implied by that statement in regard to a situation like the one at hand. For example, whether you realize it or not you are arguing that nations have no right to decide for themselves what is part of their national heritage, or to regulate their own borders. Do you really believe this? Would you argue that the United States has no authority to decide who, and what goods, should be allowed to enter or leave the country? How can any country claim any measure of sovereignty if they lack even the legal or moral right to control their borders? Is the Border Patrol overstepping the authority of the US government? Arguing that anyone should be permitted to enter any country they wish, remove anything they wish, and take it out of the country as they wish, and that country should have no say in the matter is over the top to me, yet that is what one ends up arguing when one says that nations should not be able to restrict the removal and sale of fossils.

Further, removing these fossils and creating a commercial market for them generates an environment in which real science becomes effectively impossible. Already legitimate paleontologists have to hire armed guards to protect active digs, and rush to get things out of the ground, risking compromising data such as associated fauna and flora. Research funds are limited as it is, and when costs are escalated by having to bring along (and so pay, house, and feed) a significant security force then less time can be spent in the field, reducing the area that can be explored and number of specimens that can be removed. In the past, finds that could not be immediately collected could be reburied, and collected at a subsequent date, but with every move of the researchers under constant surveillance by bandit collectors anything left in the ground will be gone long before the researchers can return. So, one can say "what difference does one Tarbosaurus make", but the issue is rather that a million $ market for that specimen generates an environment where nothing can be collected in a safe and scientifically responsible manner.

Now, we can discuss whether or not there might be a better way to do things. I happen to think that the proper (i.e. scientific) collection and sale of common or well-known species could generate revenue to fund scientific collection and study of less well known species. A million $ for one dinosaur could fund a lot of research, and locals could be trained and paid to scout outcrops and assist in the proper collection of specimens. Even in such a scenario, the government would have to have regulations in place to keep wildcat collectors from carting off with everything, but at least there would be a stream of specimens going out to private collectors and museums, and perhaps the research side could be self supporting through sales.

I'm a bit sensitive to the issue, as I am aware of the Canadian experience where for many years field parties from American museums helped themselves to dinosaurs from the Alberta badlands. In many cases they were only looking to highrade display specimens of complete skeletons. Sometimes field parties would collect such specimens and sell them to the highest bidder. For a time Canadian dinosaurs could be seen in several American and European museums, but no material was in Canadian hands. Eventually the Canadian government funded some collecting for Canadian museums, but as well the Alberta government responded with draconian restrictions on the collection of anything, even common leaf or brachiopod fossils. That is another risk that is generated by unrestrained unscientific collection and export of "charismatic" fossils, such as dinosaurs: governments may respond with excessive regulation that impacts everyone, including hobby collectors and serious amateurs alike.

Don

[AgrilusHunter]

Go on the street and ask people if they would rather have their tax dollars spent on research and development of electricity or on the study of dinosaurs.

Hi steelhead9,

This is a different thought experiment than before though, and frankly a very different debate. We are not debating that paleontology is more valuable than medical research, or energy research. Instead we are debating whether paleontology has any value in modern times. Personally, I think how many people understand, or can define, something has no correlation at all with how important it is for them, take modern medicine for example.

Also, it is a stretch to call oil and gas paleontology.

You power your car and your house every day with the residue of past organisms. Oil, gas, and coal are fossils. I don't think this is a strech at all.

Edited January 23, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[steelhead9]

Hi steelhead9,

This is a different thought experiment than before though, and frankly a very different debate. We are not debating that paleontology is more valuable than medical research, or energy research. Instead we are debating whether paleontology has any value in modern times. Personally, I think how many people understand, or can define, something has no correlation at all with how important it is for them, take modern medicine for example.

You power your car and your house every day with the residue of past organisms. Oil, gas, and coal are fossils. I don't think this is a strech at all.

I, personally, agree with you. Again, I postulate, if oil and gas corporations are allowed to, in effect and by your definition, collect fossils for profit on public lands, why aren't other commercial fossil collectors allowed the same?

[THobern]

I, personally, agree with you. Again, I postulate, if oil and gas corporations are allowed to, in effect and by your definition, collect fossils for profit on public lands, why aren't other commercial fossil collectors allowed the same?

They are, but it's a matter of proper channels and oversight.

[AgrilusHunter]

I, personally, agree with you. Again, I postulate, if oil and gas corporations are allowed to, in effect and by your definition, collect fossils for profit on public lands, why aren't other commercial fossil collectors allowed the same?

Hi steelhead9,

Personally I'm not a big fan of that practice in the first place, but I see it as a necessary evil. To answer your question directly I would say governments allow this because they need oil and gas to run their countries. Commercial fossil collectors don't generate the same level of product.

Should a system be in place to allow both? Probably. Like FossilDAWG, I think it could be possible for commercial collectors, professional paleontologists, and governments to work together. I just don't think it is very likely. The other answer to your question is that oil and gas don't look cool behind a display case, charisma plays a role when it comes to cultural value, even if it shouldn't.

Edit: Well ... never mind I guess it is likely. Thanks THobern!

Edited January 28, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[smokeriderdon]

You're saying that showing us the origins of life, confirming Evolution, refuting the Creationist worldview, shifting Religious debates and revolutionising the way we think about our place in the Universe is just knowledge for the sake of knowledge?

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Debating why we are here is NOT furthering humanity. Refuting someones point of view is NOT helping humanity. The origins of life...really neat stuff, but it certainly does nothing to help stop malaria now does it?

As for the use of paleontology for oil and gas. I am pretty darn sure there were no paleontologists guiding the oil drillers in Texas at the beginning. They found the stiff pretty well without it. Now, did it make it more accurate? Yep, sure did. But paleontology was NOT at all responsible for oil exploration. It is simply one tool of many used to make the finding of the oil more efficient. Hardly a resounding argument for the importance of paleontology.

We do not need paleontology to tell us what things were like before we ripped them up. We know how much forest we have destroyed and how many fisheries have been ruined. Paleontology has zero to do with telling us how the striped bass population in the Chesapeake Bay was before and after regulations. We know all of that without looking at a single fossil.

As I said, I love this science/hobby. But I am realistic about it. Space travel is much more likely to have an affect on humanity in the future than knowing the lineage of Megaladon.

[THobern]

The Texan stuff was oozing out of the ground. It takes a lot more to find future reserves.

How can something that has refuted a lot of religious dogma, a driving force in world affairs, not affect Humanity.

If we are going to search for life on other planets, we should know what it is, how it starts and how it progresses.

As to whether Paleontology cures HIV or Malaria, that's completely irrelevant. We can manage more than that, or is the point that it is not working towards specific aims? It's trite, but scientific progress doesn't come from deciding in advance what we need to know. Apart from unforeseen discoveries, scientific branches cannot be thought of as operating within a vacuum; Evolution frames our understanding of Biology - a subject we should probably come to grips with if we want to address diseases.

[AgrilusHunter]

Well said, THobern.

[steelhead9]

Hi steelhead9,

Personally I'm not a big fan of that practice in the first place, but I see it as a necessary evil. To answer your question directly I would say governments allow this because they need oil and gas to run their countries. Commercial fossil collectors don't generate the same level of product.

Should a system be in place to allow both? Probably. Like FossilDAWG, I think it could be possible for commercial collectors, professional paleontologists, and governmenst to work together. I just don't think it is very likely. The other answer to your question is that oil and gas don't look cool behind a display case, charisma plays a role when it comes to cultural value, even if it shouldn't.

Edit: Well ... never mind I guess it is likely. Thanks THobern!

I'm with you all the way! Until we can find a way for all interests to work together, we'll just keep bangin' heads.

[steelhead9]

The Texan stuff was oozing out of the ground. It takes a lot more to find future reserves.

How can something that has refuted a lot of religious dogma, a driving force in world affairs, not affect Humanity.

If we are going to search for life on other planets, we should know what it is, how it starts and how it progresses.

As to whether Paleontology cures HIV or Malaria, that's completely irrelevant. We can manage more than that, or is the point that it is not working towards specific aims? It's trite, but scientific progress doesn't come from deciding in advance what we need to know. Apart from unforeseen discoveries, scientific branches cannot be thought of as operating within a vacuum; Evolution frames our understanding of Biology - a subject we should probably come to grips with if we want to address diseases.

Not sure about Australia, but it hasn't done a thing to change religious dogma in this country. God put all them thar fossils there to test our faith!

[AgrilusHunter]

Not sure about Australia, but it hasn't done a thing to change religious dogma in this country. God put all them thar fossils there to test our faith!

Ha! Indeed. Still the US, especially our education system, has come a long way since Scope's Monkey Trial in 1925.

Edited January 24, 2013 by AgrilusHunter

[smokeriderdon]

The Texan stuff was oozing out of the ground. It takes a lot more to find future reserves.

Yes, which is why I said it is one of many tools used. The point being that paleontology is not responsible for oil discoveries and exploration.

How can something that has refuted a lot of religious dogma, a driving force in world affairs, not affect Humanity.

You give this far too much credence. It matters not at all what any science says. A person of faith remains that regardless. Paleontological discoveries have not slowed down a single religion out there. I haven't see a single muslim give up a jihad because of paleontological discoveries. Ever seen a Catholic denounce Jesus because we can show evolution with fossils? I sure have not. No, the refuting you speak of is simply a philosophical exercise.

If we are going to search for life on other planets, we should know what it is, how it starts and how it progresses.

How life here came about has nothing to do with how it came about on another planet. Or maybe it does. Who knows? Paleontology doesn't map biological process. Only a result of it. Nothing in paleontology tells us how a trilobite reproduced. We come up with deductions based on current biology. Nor does paleontology tell us if the big bang theory is correct. Nor does it say how life happened. The Burgess Shale tells us not a thing as to why all of a sudden those life forms were there. And it never will. It only tells us that they existed. And knowing how the three headed purple thing pointing a blaster at me evolved probably isn't going to do a lot for me.

Our biology is a current issue, not an issue of ancient history. Understanding how we react and interact in this environment now has nothing to do with the environment Lucy was in. They were different animals in a different set of circumstances. Again, cool to know, but not anything that is applicable to anything today.

[THobern]

... The Burgess Shale tells us not a thing as to why all of a sudden those life forms were there. And it never will. It only tells us that they existed. And knowing how the three headed purple thing pointing a blaster at me evolved probably isn't going to do a lot for me...

My suspicion is that people who make statements like this just don't realise what comes out of the seemingly-philatelic sciences; Botany; Etymology; Taxonomy; Paleontology. I'm glad you mentioned Burgess, as if you read Wonderful Life you'll see that it's about much more than simply asserting the existence of the Burgess fauna. Gould drew inferences about the nature and process of evolution, and applied them to contemporary biology. Read any anthology of his essays and you'll see that Paleontology is more than amassing data points; like any science, it seeks to explain them in terms of broader, predictive theory.

Finally, I'd ask, how do you know that Christians haven't been persuaded? The fact that much of Christianity has now accepted Evolution over YEC is a major ceding of grounds. Before Evolution, Deism was a necessary position; of course there is still Religion, there likely always will be, but the large population of Atheists are evidence that religion's influence has been weakened.

How life here came about has nothing to do with how it came about on another planet. Or maybe it does. Who knows? Paleontology doesn't map biological process. Only a result of it. Nothing in paleontology tells us how a trilobite reproduced. We come up with deductions based on current biology.

"Who knows" is why we're looking, and what on Earth does "nothing in paleontology tells us how a trilobite reproduced" even mean? How narrowly are you defining Paleontology to make that question exclusive to Biology? It's not just that Paleontology is necessary to understand Evolution, and Evolution to understand Biology; they are poorly-delineated parts of a larger attempt to understand life.

Edited January 24, 2013 by THobern

[THobern]

Our biology is a current issue, not an issue of ancient history. Understanding how we react and interact in this environment now has nothing to do with the environment Lucy was in. They were different animals in a different set of circumstances. Again, cool to know, but not anything that is applicable to anything today.

True, but misleading. Biology does not mean Physiology. Yes, how we work physiologically is an issue better answered by Biology, but that's because Paleontology doesn't tend to answer questions of individual organisms. However, Phsyiology tells us nothing about how populations react to catastrophic climate shift.

It's about selecting the right branch of Science to answer the right question. And Paleontology, which extends beyond the mere collection of data, is a very sharp tool.

[THobern]

Not sure about Australia, but it hasn't done a thing to change religious dogma in this country. God put all them thar fossils there to test our faith!

It's now unconstitutional to teach Creationism.

[mikeymig]

Don,

Not a problem. Everyone on this forum, If I can summarize, are very passionate about fossils and paleontology. When it comes to an ideology or what political stance you support, mine is Libertarianism. To answer your question, no, I really don't care what countries or governments have to say when it comes to fossils leaving "their" borders. If I strike a deal with a landowner whether it be here in NY, Canada, or Mongolia to collect fossils then that's it, end of story. I'm not dealing in radioactive material or minerals that are being used to make weapons so, the govt. should stay out of it. I'm not sure about you, but if I found on my property a skull or the remains of an ancient alien, then it's mine. If the govt. wanted them then they can pay me or they can go to the highest bidder. With all the rules and regulations regarding the collecting of fossils, think of how many that are lost each year to the elements. There are not enough paleontologist out there to collect them and most don't want to. As far as scientific data lost due to us amateurs, who cares if the dinosaur was lying on the right as opposed to the left. It's the specimen that most of the data comes from anyway and amateurs like the guys at the Black Hills Institute know how to extract a fossil properly. If we were talking about ancient human civilizations then yes, most of the scientific data comes when the artifacts are found and they should be safe guarded from looters. Like I said before, we are all temporary custodians of the fossils we have and when we are gone, they will remain as they have for millions of years for others to enjoy. So if someone wants to own a Tarbosaurus, and it was found on someone's property that leased the land to a amateur paleontologist, then good for them. When they get tired of it or want to donate the specimen someday or resell it that's their right. Who are we to tell people what they can have and not have? As long as no one gets hurt and the item can't harm anyone, so be it.

Mikey

[steelhead9]

It's now unconstitutional to teach Creationism.

If you mean in the USA, that is why so many private Christian schools are springing up everywhere. Also, if I am not mistaken, many public schools, especially in the South, are now required to present both points of view. It's not probably worth arguing about, but there has been an alarming upswell in creationist theory here.

[Cris]

...I really don't care what countries or governments have to say when it comes to fossils leaving "their" borders. If I strike a deal with a landowner whether it be here in NY, Canada, or Mongolia to collect fossils then that's it, end of story. I'm not dealing in radioactive material or minerals that are being used to make weapons so, the govt. should stay out of it. I'm not sure about you, but if I found on my property a skull or the remains of an ancient alien, then it's mine.

So why is it that if it was found on your property, it's yours...But if it was found on Mongolian land, it belongs to whomever found it? You feel like a Government shouldn't have a right to regulate....their own country? What should they be allowed to do if they can't even control what leaves their land?

The facts are, in many countries the citizens do not have the right to strike up a deal with a collector to take things from their land. I asked somebody this in the chat room last night, but you'd feel like if you discovered a Native American burial on your property, human remains and grave goods, that you would own all that? Not according to US law, or does that even matter? What if you owned a property, but not the mineral rights to it? How is that much different?

Last I heard, responsible collectors followed laws regarding fossils and collecting even if we don't like them.

[squali]

The initial question posed regarding what has paleontology offered is interesting. First we have to look at all science as a long term

endeavor. All of our scientific disciplines have seen highs and lows in Eureaka moments. Chemistry, biology,physics, geology have all historically hit walls that took time and diligence to work around. Each branch of science has benefited from discoveries in other branches. Paleontology provided the bedrock (pun intended) for Darwin's "On the Origin of Species". So, you say 'What have you done for me lately??' Well quite possibly the mars Lander is right now turning over a rock with some strange shapes on it. Which astro physicist do you know that could identify the shapes as belonging to an extinct algae on earth? Some times when knowledge is persued for knowledge sake it can prove fruitful.